Similarly situated employees are entitled to retrospective regularization; delay does not bar relief for a continuing wrong.

The petitioner was engaged as a Jail Warder/Temporary Prahari for 89 days from 14 July 1997 and was thereafter continued through repeated short-term extensions involving artificial one-day breaks.

Pursuant to directions of the State Administrative Tribunal, his services were regularized with effect from 16 December 2008.

Subsequently, similarly situated employees, including Smt. Sarojini Katare, Smt. Shyama Rajput, Smt. Shobha Shrivastava and Smt. Usha Arya, were granted regularization with effect from 4 July 2003.

Claiming parity, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking the same date of regularization, which was rejected by the respondents.

He therefore invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the rejection order and regularization from 4 July 2003 with consequential benefits.

Whether the petitioner, having been regularized from 16 December 2008, was entitled to parity with similarly situated employees who had subsequently been granted regularization with effect from 4 July 2003.

Whether the petitioner’s delayed claim was barred by laches, delay or acquiescence.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the petitioner’s representation was arbitrary and violative of the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle that identically situated employees in service matters must ordinarily receive identical treatment.

Relying on State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, it held that similarly situated employees should not be denied the benefit extended to others merely because they approached the Court later, subject to the exceptions of delay, laches and acquiescence; those exceptions may not apply where the judgment concerns a policy or regularization scheme intended to benefit all similarly situated employees.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, for the rule that delay does not defeat claims arising from a continuing wrong, particularly in matters involving payment, refixation and pensionary/service benefits.

It further referred to Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055, recognizing pensionary and consequential benefits as capable of giving rise to a continuing cause of action, while limiting arrears where appropriate.

The Court followed the parity reasoning in Shyama Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 8189 of 2021, where employees similarly situated to Smt. Sarojini Katare were directed to be regularized from 4 July 2003 with consequential benefits.

The Court found that the petitioner had continuously worked after his initial 89-day engagement despite artificial one-day breaks and had already been regularized pursuant to judicial directions.

Since employees similarly situated to him had been granted the more favourable date of regularization—4 July 2003—the Court held that denying the same benefit to the petitioner lacked a reasonable basis and amounted to unequal treatment.

The respondents’ contention that the petitioner’s initial appointment was not shown to be against a sanctioned post, and that his claim was delayed by more than 19 years, was not accepted as sufficient to defeat parity, particularly because the petitioner asserted a continuing service-related wrong and had approached the authorities after learning of the comparable benefits.

Applying Arvind Kumar Shrivastava and Tarsem Singh, the Court held that delay and laches did not bar the claim in the circumstances.

It directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services with effect from 4 July 2003—the date from which the similarly situated employees had been regularized—and to extend all consequential benefits within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.